Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to The No Asshole Rule, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of rhetorical terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaphora. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Expurgation page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Animal Collective page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello User000name. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 19:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suitcase nuclear device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallels. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DATEUNIFY and note what is said about the YYYY-MM-DD format for access and archive dates. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these edits are contrary to agreed Wikipedia policies, as per WP:DATEUNIFY. Please (a) stop (b) undo them immediately. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous neither Wikipedia's readers nor editors are going to know these standards to a degree over 10% (only "spider experts" will); thus, it is best to go from two possible meanings to one. For American articles: ####-##-## or ##-##-#### probably means month then day (MM-DD), and for non-American articles: it probably means DD-MM. Parameters access-date and sometimes archive-date can be very important for the citation especially if it has no date; ambiguity should be avoided there. —User 000 name 08:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may think it is ridiculous, but this is agreed policy for the whole of Wikipedia; it's nothing to do with spiders or any other kind of topic. If you want to change this, start a discussion (but we have had many already and always agreed on this policy). There are styles I don't personally like, but I have to go along with the consensus, and so do you.

##-##-#### is forbidden precisely because it is ambiguous. YYYY-MM-DD has one agreed meaning here.

I don't want to be difficult about this, but you do need to undo all the edits you made which are against WP:DATEUNIFY. Editors who continue to edit against agreed policies can end up being banned (a fact, not a threat – I don't have the power to ban anyone). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will undo them, but is there some way I can be more precise in my undoing, such getting it to not undo certain lines and maybe even certain diff parts of those lines? —User 000 name 18:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not without some programming, as far as I know. I can see that it's annoying if you correctly fixed inconsistent dmy or md,y dates as well as incorrectly changing consistent access/archive dates. Ideally you would undo the edits and then use a tool that respected the different policies applying to the different kinds of dates to fix the article again. Most important is to get it right in future. There's a lot to be said for working slowly until you have more experience, and see what feedback you get. It takes a while to get used to the Manual of Style and all its subpages, as I know from experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't overstate the seriousness of the fact that you have resumed doing what you've been clearly told you must not do. And in addition to screwing up the access/archive dates, you're even changing dates in direct quotes. STOP these automated changes and undo them NOW.

I know you're trying to help, but automated changes are something only very experienced editors should attempt, and that goes double for modifying scripts for such changes. Pinging Peter coxhead, Ohconfucius. EEng 11:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As EEng says, you have been told, and you really must stop making incorrect changes; review your edits before saving them. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Blade of the Northern Lights (just my favorite random admin who comes to mind) since time is passing with no response, do you have a magic button that can mass-undo all this user's edits from the past few days? Once other users unknowingly edit on top of them, it will become far more difficult to untangle this. If it were just changes in formats it would be one thing, but even dates in direct quotes have been changed. I'm on a very slow connection for the next week or so, so I can't do it. EEng 16:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact I have just the tool; mass rollback. Taken care of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! User0, I hope this doesn't discourage your from contributing in other ways. It's usually best to start by simply editing articles the old-fashioned way -- fixing errors, improving the writing, adding missing details and sources, etc. EEng 01:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, The Blade of the Northern Lights, I think you need to use the Super Powerful Complete Shazam! Mass Rollback. You only got the tip of the iceberg (maybe there's some date parameter or something you need to expand). Sorry to bother you again. EEng 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it; not sure why it got all whacked out the first time, or why I didn't notice it, but I think I got them all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @EEng: But doesn't When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred. cover these type of changes ? I'm asking because I use a script that changes these dates in similar fashion. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 04:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem was that this user was changing fully consistent yyyy-mm-dd access/archive dates to other formats, whereas these are allowed to be in this format, regardless of the format used for other dates. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget all that. He was changing direct quotes, FFS. I notice he's edited since this discussion started and yet hasn't bothered to respond here. Though he's stopped now, he kept doing this long after he'd been strongly warned to stop. I'm not sure he understands what he's done wrong. EEng 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of your edits (Wikidata) but it looks like many more need to be reverted as well. See the 16 May 2016 message from EEng above. What discussion has authorized the mass changing of date formats? Johnuniq (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Regarding] Will do, although I hope that info is elsewhere on those pages. —User 000 name 01:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pornography addiction may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "still struggle with issues like excessive pornography viewing, masturbation" when married.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119119/secular-sociologist-studies-evangelical-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the purpose of the "external links" section on your userpage, particularly the "Holocaust Revisionism" section. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please remove any YouTube links that are copyright violations, e.g. the Montel Williams show. Such links are not allowed. If you can't figure out which they are, remove all the YouTube links. Your choice. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of sections "external links" and "Holocaust Revisionism": it is a collection of info, sometimes the sources aren't the best per WP policy so I will not add them anywhere at the (Main) namespace but will keep them on my userpage; is there an issue with that? I'll remove the links. —User 000 name 21:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you maintain a sub-page to contain reference material rather than put it on your user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Saturn star (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using edit summaries like this one. We have a policy prohibiting personal attacks. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a required notice that I have opened a thread on the ANI noticeboard thread concerning you. The thread may be found here and you may post any response at that location. Please do not post further to my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overreaction. You should unblock me. Main namespace edits where not an issue "kike.htm" was a name of a webpage; "kyke" is an old-style spelling for "kike". I will remove garbage from my userpage (bad sources: blogs, POVs, whatever). Other than my userpage I did no "wrong" check here: Special:Contributions/User000name. As for political beliefs (which is not really relevant here) I value independence over dependence. —User 000 name 02:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:User000name:

"His '1,000 mainspace edits' consist mostly of running MOSNUMscript. That's a pretty minor effort compared to the time he's spent lovingly curating a userpage full of racist and anti-Semitic nonsense"

I edited my userpage to remove reliable sources that I added to various articles. I never promoted Nazism, racism, or anti-semitism anywhere here (those are point of views); my userpage was just a collection of info which mistakenly had POVs and bad sources. You could have just warned me that you were going to permanently ban me and I would have gladly removed crap sources and POVs to prevent the permaban. I am not a Nazi, but I fear that you guys are acting like Nazis. —User 000 name 02:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "fags"? EEng 02:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do now. I like Wikipedia but its users are major cunts. —User 000 name 20:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunts who are fags? Listen... Since you've been blocked and all, and will have some time on your hands, perhaps you might volunteer for the Trump campaign; you'd fit right in there. Or, you might join up with someone planning another attack on a gay nightclub; you'd fit right in there as well. Funny, come to think of it. EEng 22:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Friend, you seem to be insulting me here. I thought there was a policy against personal attacks - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUser000name&diff=next&oldid=723081976. I would like to point out that what was criticized about me should be taken into context. At that time in my life I know I wasn't very cordial. I was banned because: MOSNUM edits, insulting a user, posting what was basically seen as bad info on my user page, and unintentionally changing I think about one direct quote which was probably due to the MOSNUM script thing. MOSNUM/DATEUNIFY: I made edits that changed all of the dates in an article to be in a single date format; these edits sometimes included http->https link upgrades. Above, someone said "One problem was that this user was changing fully consistent yyyy-mm-dd access/archive dates to other formats, whereas these are allowed to be in this format, regardless of the format used for other dates." So my DATEUNIFY edits were seen as bad because some of them might have been non-constructive edits I guess. So then wouldn't reverting them also be non-constructive edits/not-very-useful edits? Whatever. I don't really care about date formats anymore. I insulted a user because I dislike censorship; Wikipedia is against "trivial info"/"bad info", so I guess it is pointless to speak out against it as censorship is inherent to Wikipedia. Also name calling is probably a low form of making an argument/point, so one could insult my insult on those grounds. In 2016 I was permabanned, and this disturbed me. It disturbed me because I truly did care about Wikipedia. I still do care about Wikipedia, but I don't care as much for it now as I did years ago. For most of my life it seems that the main thing that I have been doing is contributing to online informational projects. This might be my true passion. I would say that it was bad that Wikipedians made me view Wikipedia in such a negative light, but what I did after being banned wasn't that regrettable. I contributed to other online projects, and not this website (your lose). The block log states: "19:54, 2 June 2016 Drmies talk contribs blocked User000name talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)". I did really want to contribute to an encyclopedia. That claim in the block log is false. I did make truly good edits. If I wasn't here to "contribute to the encyclopedia", then what was I here for? I might ask for someone to undo my ban, but I don't really see myself putting a huge amount of effort into edits as I did those years ago. If I was unbanned I would make quality edits if I saw something I was interested in that needed to be edited. -- —User 000 name 23:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User000name. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Trivium's Shield of the Trinity.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]